Any rear windows?The windows became bigger ... so the visibility from the bridge would be improved and... as a bonus it would look even better!
Yes, and more aviation fuel.Given how loathe this carrier is already without being nuclear, what benefits will there be to moving to a nuclear carrier? Range and endurance?
No, the Ford class is an optimal size. It is better to build more carriers than larger carriers.Also, does the size of this carrier point towards a potentially much larger nuclear carrier? Potentially greater than Nimitz/Gerald R. Ford class in size?
Yes, and more aviation fuel.
No, the Ford class is an optimal size. It is better to build more carriers than larger carriers.
Yes, but the landing strip should be 250 meters long and a catapult has more than 100 meters. So a CATOBAR-carrieres flightdeck is normaly longer than 300 meters. The 330 meters of the Ford class is the optimal size for an air wing of 50 aircraft.Already, even the loss of Nimitz Class / Gerald R. Ford Class is too much to fathom.
Yes, I guess it makes sense as well from a risk perspective. A bigger carrier would also mean a much bigger risk in the event it was lost during combat.
Yes, but the landing strip should be 250 meters long and a catapult has more than 100 meters. So a CATOBAR-carrieres flightdeck is normaly longer than 300 meters. The 330 meters of the Ford class is the optimal size for an air wing of 50 aircraft.
Any rear windows?
There should be an aft bridge, otherwise they can only observe the area around the aft elevators via TV.